When I heard the comment, my head could not hit my desk hard enough. How do politicians ever get to the national stage when they say stupid things like that?

The interesting thing? These stupid comments are going to be used as a more effective bludgeon against the Republican presidential ticket than the actual racist dog whistle from the current VP. It's almost surreal.

I watched the video, and I thought Akin was trying to distinguish between rape and non-rape. Whoopi Goldberg tried to draw that distinction, but equally inartfully. "Rape" means things we define as rape, including most obviously forced sexual intercourse without consent. "Non-rape" means things that at least many people would agree don't fit that definition, including most obviously mutually consensual sex that the woman later discovers to her horror has resulted in pregnancy, and so says "he raped me".

This question-- what fits in the definition of rape-- is not settled, and it's foolish to pretend that it is.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I don't understand what others think Akin was saying. Are they saying Akin was saying that some rapes are approvable and righteous? Really? Or is it something else?

Bob, he was quoted as saying that the female body has ways of shutting down pregnancy if she is, um, legitimately raped. So for some people anyway, that leaves open the interpretation that a pregnant woman who says she got pregnant by being raped, is lying.

Harrogate: That is an inaccurate interpretation of what he said. He said it is rare, implying that he thinks the question being asked to him is about corner cases. He then steps in it and says something stupid. He is not implying that those women were not raped, simply that, for whatever reason, he has been told that pregnancies from rape are rare.

Your interpretation is to try and find the most heinous possible misinterpretation and apply it. What he said is stupid without deliberately trying to up the ante.

Since O and his team started the relentless negative campaign, I have seen quite a lot of artiles calling for civility, and now a remark which deals with rape by an obscure republican is being used to prove how equally both sides are muck-raking.

Let's let Ryan say something as disgusting as Biden and then we'll talk.

Matthew, I didn't say I interpreted that way. although, he DID say that the female body has ways of shutting down rape-caused pregnancies. Sort of hard to eradicate that comment. But I do not think he actually believes this. I think you identify what he was trying to do and certainly agree this is a problem mostly centered on stupidity. But "inartful" (Bob's word) surely does not cover the extent of the stupidity.

I agree with you that what I wrote takes his comment to "the most heinous possible interpretation and [applies] it." But I am not trying to up the ante, but I do believe I accurately identifying how this will play out, especially in Mizzou.

I think assuming he had anything specific in mind is being generous. He probably saw some stat somewhere on the number of women who are raped who become pregnant and thought: "Well, that's not a lot," and just assumed there must be a rational reason.

But, I'm willing to bet Republicans will run him anyway, because stupid is infectious.

"I feel like I missed something. Is there some reason that Romney and/or Ryan have responsibility for something said by a Mo Representative that I've never even heard of?"

-- Because a Republican's failings are the faults of the movement, while a Democrat's failings are the sin of a single man. I forget who stated that first (I think over at Hot Air? Maybe Moe Lane?), but that's basically it. Republicans are much more frequently asked to bring their stupid compatriots to task. That has been changing though, thanks to the Internet.

32,000 a year? Out of a population of how many women? Google estimates (in 2011) that the U.S.'s population is 311,591,917. For clean math, let's say 312,000,000, divide by roughly two for 156,000,000 women (I know it is not a perfect 50/50 split, but this is quick, dirty math.)

32,000 out of 156,000,000 is... a ridiculously small percentage. But, that's only rapes (not sexual assaults, as my understanding is that those are gropings/molestations but not rapes) that end in pregnancies taken to term. So, I don't think, from that number alone, we can say they are over reported.

As for what this guy was thinking of, I have heard that the stress of rape may make it more difficult for a woman to get pregnant, so maybe that's what he was thinking of. I have no idea if that is actually true, though, and it probably doesn't apply when you're talking about repeated abuse.

Professor, I agree with your analysis. But that's not how it's being played. I think Jay has it right: the left wants to portray Akin as soft on rape, not soft in the brain. In the end, it doesn't matter, but it's similar to pretending Ryan is against old people rather than pro-math.

Right, but that's different from the initial statement that the math was dealing with. Bringing up the 1/4 number is realigning the initial discussion away from: "The estimated number is approximately 32,000 per year. ... My rational response to that is rape & sexual assualt are over reported."

If you had mentioned that 1/4 women are raped, I'd have said that is potentially being over-reported (though, I would assume, what they mean is that the total number of rapes, were it to be divided among the population, would mean one in four women have been raped/sexually assaulted, in short, clumsy short-hand ignoring that a woman who is raped is not removed from the population and no longer able to be raped,) but just from hearing the 32,000 number of pregnancies resulting from rapes, it is not rational to reach "rapes are over reported."

In fact, the 1/4 number is not dealing with -reported- rapes either, which doesn't help lead to the conclusion that they are over reported.

Jay, you appear to be defending it, by claiming that Althouse was "pretending" when she offered an explanation for what Akin might have been thinking when he said what he said.

You claim to know that her explaination was incorrect. I asked what the true explation is, if hers is so clearly wrong, and you get defensive. Again. What did he mean by the quote about the body shutting the process down?

Forgetting or course that Mr. Ryan voted for and sponsored a bill forbidding abortion even in cases of rape.

I would call that one step removed from this fool in Missouri.

I also read the papers and I really have yet to see where Romney and Ryan took this bozo to task....

And to Bob and a few other dolts on here...tell your wives not to put up a fuss next time they have headaches...it won't be rape. It will simply be your right as a man and husband. See how that sells in your home.

Akin's constituents picked him, not Ryan and not Romney. If anyone should distance themselves from Akin, it's them. Obama did actually pick Biden and Biden picked that moronic "chains" line along with all his other idiotic lines.

To be fairer-than-necessary to Akin, yes, pregnancy resulting from rape is fairly uncommon. Women do, routinely, miscarry while suffering through a stressful event like the aftermath of a rape. But it doesn't happen every time and it's neither here nor there, anyway. If a fetus is a person, it doesn't matter if he/she was conceived in "legitimate" rape or rape-rape or Polanski-rape or whatever. If a fetus is not a person, then an abortion is just an elective procedure like any other, and the only question should be who pays for it.

Ah, see, now that is a radically different argument than over reported. I understand that rape is a sticky charge that, in many cases, is both hard to prove and sometimes also completely manufactured. But, I would be hesitant to say it is over reported, because that assumes that the false charges of rape occur more frequently than the unreported incidents of rape, a statistic I don't think anyone will be able to tease out any time soon.

Alpha-amylase is secreted when the nervous system produces compounds known as catecholamines in response to the "fight or flight" stress reactions.

Buck Louis says there is early evidence that catecholamines released in response to this type of stress reduce blood flow, which slows the passage of the fertilized egg to the uterus.

The difficulty is that any one woman will react differently to the stress. Fight or flight activation varies considerably across a population.

The idea that this is linked to Ryan is ridiculous however. But given things like this eye-roll inducing letter to the editor this morning, it doesn't surprise me that people will wrap themselves up into a pretzel to try to pull down a Candidate that supports policies that run counter to one's own preferred policies.

Because he in no way is implying any thought that could lead to these sorts of comments: "And to Bob and a few other dolts on here...tell your wives not to put up a fuss next time they have headaches...it won't be rape. It will simply be your right as a man and husband. See how that sells in your home."

Get your silly ideas out of your head and confront the stupidness head on, sure. But no reason to add imagined stupidity and bigotry that isn't there.

@Shanna, it sounds like it's probably harder for a woman in a stressful situation to get pg, but not impossible by any means. That sounds right, based on everything that I know, too. Getting pregnant is a weird thing - there are a lot of things that make it more or less likely, but none of them are absolute.

In other words, it's a gross misunderstanding to claim that it won't happen, but it is probably accurate to say that it's less likely.

It was supposed to be basically impossible for me during a certain part of last spring. Hehe.

I wish people would stop using that phrase, it's so ignorant. Just write, "stupid," because that's what our economy is the result of.

Until we decide to establish some basis for reality, there is absolutely no way to this country can improve itself economically. Akin's comment is a perfect example - he's the level of politician we're electing (along with those with other obvious flaws, like being cultists) so we're focussed on his dumb comments instead of something important or interesting. Our entire country is being dragged down by this kind of thing. But when - in 2012 - a person like Ann Romney can't tell the difference between water and medicine and people still declare they admire her, it's clear the majority of folks out there share a single brain cell. It happened once already with Obama. Twice is clear:

No nation can continue being this fucking stupid.

It's simply impossible, and the economy is merely a reflection of that,...

@Shanna, it sounds like it's probably harder for a woman in a stressful situation to get pg, but not impossible by any means.

Oh sure, Lyssa. And as I said, probably repeated abuse, as would be the case in a child abuse situation or that poor girl who was locked up in that guys backyard, would make it far more likely because the stress response would deaden. And people are at different levels of fertility, response to stress, and points in their cycle.

1. We have the example of almost 2,000 Muslim women in Bosnia who were raped and became pregnant. Indeed, that was one of the reasons given for going to war.

2. Throughout our human history, romantic procreation willingly engaged in by both parties was the exception, and not the rule.

Woman in arranged marriages for several thousands of years, in relationships where the woman was esentially servant and chattel, or taken away as slaves and fucked silly - had no difficulty getting pregnant. Had a lawyer or feminazi been there...they would have called most of human procreation as within the modern definition of "Rape".

3. Some strong evidence exists that rape or rough sex stimulated luteinizing hormones that prompt ovulation and help odds of implantation. Higher odds of getting pregnant if raped or beaten up or subject to other stess in sexual intercourse have been documented in statistical data as consequence of mass rapes in wartime. Or studies in the US of rape victims in the days before abortion standard protocol to have rape victims take a morning after pill as part of treatment.Part of it is believed evolutionary and it applies to other mammals..the alpha male that defeats previous males and plants his seed instead is a desired thing from evolutions standpoint. Better chances of passing on both the male and female DNA.Just as evolution appears to have modified human females and other mammalian females to detect and naturally abort genetically malformed or other defective fetuses,

As a woman my concern is with men in power who hold such beliefs and work to end abortion in all instances, like this dolt. Ryan was much more appealing as a candidate until I became aware of his stance and vote on abortion in the personhood bill.

The study showing 32,000 pregnancies a year as a result of rape does not appear to distinguish between statutory rape and forcible rape, and includes pregnancies in mothers between 12 and 45. In some stats, (I'm not sure about this one, but I'd take a bet) all pregnant mothers under the age of consent count as rape victims, regardless of the age of the father, if it is even disclosed/known because it is true that they were legally unable to consent. So that skews the stats quite a bit. And, yeah, I do think it's fair to say that Akin meant "forcible rape" when he used the idiotic term "legitimate rape".

I just don't like this 'haha, that guy probably just thinks something stupid and improbable' response. He probably legitmately heard something about why it would be slightly less likely, and repeated it without understanding the details. That doesn't mean he's making things up. Politically, as I said, it was a stupid point to bring up because it doesn't matter if it is less likely. It still DOES happen and you still have to have a response to it.

And all the abortion talk, to me, is just useless because no one can really do anything one way or the other because the supreme court made the decision, right or wrong. Talking about it is just that, talk. In this economy, it's less than useless for a republican, it's counter productive.

and I think Lyssa's speculation is right; akin to the phenomenon where a married couple does not have kids, gets divorced and re-marry to others, and both parties proceed to have kids all over the place. No one knows why, but there certainly is a lot of speculation.

You know what's interesting? Politico's piece somehow forgot to link to Akin's more in-depth statement, even though it was released well before Politico's piece went up. That's just bad journalism to miss a key part of the story.

I think that is a salient point but in the end, I also think that so long as we have statutory rape laws on the books, then we are being specious if we make this huge distinction with respect to these numbers.

In any case, these are huge numbers. I would never have guessed the numbers to have approached anything like 32,000. I bet most Americans would be shocked if they knew that number. The suggestion that such cases are "overreported" does indeed increase in absurdity, the more you reflect upon it.

32,000 sounds like a lot. I'm not going to downplay that, for those impacted, it is a big deal. But, on the national scale, it is a very small, low-priority issue that the federal government will probably never take up.

After all, a baseball player somewhere might have injected something he shouldn't have.

I totally get the position that abortion should not be allowed even in instances of rape. After all, if you beleive the embryo is life that should be protected, then how it got there should not matter. Akin was trying to explain that this principled position isn't much of an issue because there are not many pregnancies from rape. What, Akin does not get is that the hyper partisan media is pro-choice, and most of the American public is too dumb to reflect on this sort of thinking.

Nevertheless, its probably better politically to adopt the "except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother" position used so successfully by other pro-life politicians. IN the end abortion is just a moral policy choice that should be made by the people. It's just as consistent to decide that life that began through immoral means is "not life that should be protected" than deciding that life begins at 6 weeks or 25 weeks or at birth, etc...

Shanna said: He probably legitmately heard something about why it would be slightly less likely, and repeated it without understanding the details. That doesn't mean he's making things up. Politically, as I said, it was a stupid point to bring up because it doesn't matter if it is less likely. It still DOES happen and you still have to have a response to it.

That's where the stupid comes in, IMO, when he made the leap from "less likely" to "doesn't happen," because that's an enormous difference. (Particularly in a country as large as ours - assuming we all agree on the numbers given here, 32,000 is both an enormous number (by raw numbers) and a miniscule one (by percentages - something like 1 our of every 4600 women).)

But I agree that the issue itself is largely meaningless. I just hate to have people out there just begging the opposition to hang them on stupid things like this.

Ryan co-sponsored a bill with Akin last year that introduced the bizarre term "forcible rape" to the country. It is definitely a legitimate issue to ask of Ryan. People like Akin and Ryan think all women are sluts unless proven otherwise.

Jay, your perspective only holds if you insist on collapsing 32,000 rape-caused pregnancies with all other pregnancies and then say, 'see, look what a small percentage of pregnancies that is.' I think it takes some real logical and moral gymnastics to spin it that way.

To spin it that way instead, you know, of interpreting it as: '32,000 women a year are impregnated by rape."

Ah, Lyssa, you got caught in the trap too. He doesn't say never happens, he said rare.

But, the idea is that if the media focuses on "legitimate rape" and how horribly stupid that sounds, they can let the insinuation into your head without actually -saying- he said it never happens, when what he really said is that it is rare.

Forcible rape is a technical term that the law has created to differentiate between things like statutory rape between willing partners (for example, a 19 year old guy and his 17 year old girlfriend.) It is a necessary term (and frankly, I thought it was at least a decade, if not more, old.)

Ann Althouse said... Some dumb people think the woman has to have an orgasm to get pregnant. That might be what he had in mind.

LOL:

Herbenick and her colleagues used online surveys to gather their data, which included answers from 124 women who had experienced exercise-induced orgasms and 246 women who reported exercise-induced sexual pleasure. Most of the women, ages 18 to 63 and an average age of 30, were in a relationship or married and 69 percent said they were heterosexual.

harrogate said... Jay, your perspective only holds if you insist on collapsing 32,000 rape-caused pregnancies with all other pregnancies and then say, 'see, look what a small percentage of pregnancies that is.' I think it takes some real logical and moral gymnastics to spin it that way.

Well, if you're going to define someting numerically it kind of makes sense to look at the prevalence statistically.

One can also realize that something is tiny statistically but also happens too often.

Up the ante? How can you possibly up the ante from such a remark. It is at the edge of decency if not over the cliff of it and any defense of it or justification of it is just plain idiotic on face.

A front group for the president of the United States claimed that Mitt Romney caused a woman to die of cancer and the president's spokesman refused to repudiate the content of the claim. If we set that as a baseline for "the edge of decency", a tactless comment about rape with an arguable basis in medical fact doesn't even come close.

p.s. Ryan neither voted for nor sponsored a bill that would forbid abortion even in the case of rape. Continuing to repeat a lie that everybody knows is a lie just makes you look foolish.

The 32,000 "rape-caused pregnancies" include a fair amount of pregnancies in which the father is legally a victim of rape---when two 15-year-olds engage in sex, neither can legally consent so both are rape victims. In order for the stat to have any merit in *this* discussion, we'd have to find one that actually dealt with what Akin was talking about. Which he shouldn't have opened his mouth on, anyway.

But, yeah...I don't believe that there are 32,000 pregnancies a year as a result of either forcible rape or the sort of statutory rape that should (and can, unlike when a pair of 15-year-olds "rape" each other) be prosecuted. It doesn't do anyone any favors to throw misleading stats like that out there. It also doesn't help to insist that we focus on the number and not the percentage. Context matters.

Just to make sure we understand what each other is saying (because lots of discussions are happening here), I am stating that the question is, in what "context" do these numbers belong. The questions you are raising, in terms of statutory rape (especially when both people are underaged) are good questions and suggest a healthy application of context.

Engaging the numbers in the context of US pregnancy rates, however, is a bass-ackwards application of math, not to mention general brain use.

Though I really do wish people running for office would leave medical discussions to actual doctors

Absolutely. They should also leave military discussions to soldiers, crime discussions to the police, agriculture discussions to farmers and so on. It's rare for any politician to have the first clue about any worthwhile subject.

The problem, of course, is that if you absolve them of the responsibility to even try to discuss real issues, you end up electing the guy who looks best in a suit and reads somebody else's words most eloquently from a teleprompter.

Speaking of the fact that all pregnant girls under the age of consent are technically rape victims...

Boys who knock up their girlfriends in high school are often under the age of consent, too. I wonder if MRAs are going to publish some scary number illustrating how many young men are ordered to pay support for a child who was conceived during the father's (statutory, but don't you dare clarify that) rape. They could then insist that the number not be placed into context and compared with the number of child support orders issued overall.

The problem, of course, is that if you absolve them of the responsibility to even try to discuss real issues, you end up electing the guy who looks best in a suit and reads somebody else's words most eloquently from a teleprompter.

I am not sure what your point is, there. Are you suggesting that I dismissed your distinction involving statutory rape? Also, are you suggesting that the proper context for rape-induced pregnancies is to consider them as part of the general pregnancy rate?

So, to get this straight. If a candidate fails to condemn something stupid that someone somewhere said it means that candidate agrees with it?

Someone in politics with an R after their name said something stupid off the cuff. This must necessarily place a burden on two other candidates with R's after their name to convince voters they don't think the same way.

The question comes down to: Should our policy be based around ensuring the best results for each individual, or should it be based around creating workable solutions for the majority of the population? If you're focused solely on individual by individual government solutions, 32,000 sounds huge. If you're focused on a working government for the masses/dealing with big issues, then it is a disturbing, but minor, statistic.

How you view and weigh the value of 32,000 is going to help understand the general approach to government in general.

Yes, the Republican party would be the catch basin for that kind of stupid. As the Democratic party is the catch basin for a very broad range of different stupid. Let's point at them and say they characterize their parties because they pretty much do. They are each other's cartoons except they're not funny.

On to real cartoons, I saw one yesterday, the type I skip over because the art is sketchily done and I reject that, but this cartoon did something incredibly funny right off and its sophistication made me overlook the lousy art. It had me in stitches throughout. The girl was vexed by being forced to do childlike silly things interjected reflexively in their serious adventure. The brother accepted each incident as natural and without comment and the two proceeded with her vexation appearing at inconvenient moments without the brother ever being additionally vexed. Written by an adult who has kids or never stopped being a kid, I was holding my sides laughing at it. There are some very imaginative cartoons out there. I did reject pretty much all of them at first but they're growing on me. This dumb thing had me in hysterics thinking about the people writing it, for kids of course and it seemed to me also for their fellow writers.

harrogate, it would be good to know what percentage of reported rapes result in pregnancy as well as how many pregnancies a year are the result of rape. I don't think it changes the legality or morality of abortion (like I said earlier the only question that matters there, in my opinion, is "is the fetus a person with rights?") but in general it's good to know the full context of every statistic. Yes, one pregnancy resulting from rape is too many, but 32,000 doesn't really tell us much. Percentages would allow us to know how other factors play in, when it comes to the reporting of rape that doesn't result in pregnancy and in the claim of rape once a pregnancy is diagnosed.

As the rates of birth control use have gone up, has the percentage of pregnancies resulting in rape gone down? How has OTC emergency contraception affected the percentage of rapes resulting pregnancy? What happens to the number of pregnant claiming rape when pregnancy has different social consequences? For example, in a culture that shames single pregnant women, is there a higher number of women claiming to be pregnant by rape, and what does that mean with regard to possible false claims. Does the availability of Plan B reduce the number of rapes reported date/acquaintance/marital rapes because victims no longer have to explain a pregnancy and can more easily put the ordeal behind them?

harrogate, the point in comparing men who fathered children as teenagers is that your stat about rape resulting in pregnancy uses misleading criteria for rape, and doesn't apply to the situation Akin was talking about. And that it's easy to mislead people with big scary numbers.

"Michael K is it not true that he co sponsored HR-3, I guess we shouldn't talk about THAT, shhhhh. I don't blame Romney Ryan for not wanting that mentioned."

Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it does tend to lean left so this might be considered more so than usual.

"The text of the most recent version of the Hyde Amendment provides an exception for cases of rape, stating that its prohibitions shall not apply "if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest."[5] The rape exception in H.R. 3 uses somewhat different language, stating that its limitations shall not apply "if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."[1] Some women's rights groups have questioned the addition of the qualifier "forcible" to the word "rape" in H.R. 3, noting that it excludes many forms of rape and "takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough."

I'm sure you will have a knee jerk reaction but the Hyde Amendment has been law for a long time. HR 3 makes no substantive change. Abortion politics doesn't work as well for Democrats as it once did but go ahead and scream.

HR 212 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:) basically says that states could decide what they want about the fact life begins at fertilization. It says nothing more than that, which is a position that you don't have to be radical to take. Without any specific language dealing with abortion, it in no way changes abortion laws. It's a quick, easy bill to read. There should not be so much confusion over it.

Another thought: if women's bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy from rape, is it also possible that men's bodies have ways of doing same? Perhaps in some cases, rapists' bodies would be pro-pregnancy, but presumably in many/most cases in America, they are generally anti-pregnancy.

"Legitimate rape is just a stupid term. We don't talk about legitimate murder or legitimate breaking and entering."

It seems to me that he said legitimate rape when in reality he meant actual rape. Unfortunately for him his remark was so inarticulate as to be easily misconstrued. He should have just said that he is pro life and he therefore opposes all abortions including those babies conceived as a result of rape. Preborn babies are preborn babies regardless of how they are conceived.

There is a sector of the conservative movement that is as ill informed about sex as Democrats are about economics. That said, this remark seems to be more stupid than malign. When a Democrat says something stupid, it is a quote taken out of context. When a Republican says something stupid, the context is the underlying malignity of the speaker......Adultery, obesity, nepotism, stupidity: these are all bipartisan vices and have notithing to do with party affiliation.

"harrogate, the point in comparing men who fathered children as teenagers is that your stat about rape resulting in pregnancy uses misleading criteria for rape,"

Well, let's be fair. It is not MY stat. I am reacting to these numbers at first blush, here. And I have repeatedly shown respect to your point about statutory rapes, here.

"and doesn't apply to the situation Akin was talking about."

I see no evidence whatsoever that Akin was addressing the same sorts of questions you are addressing. And I think that the thing Akin said that carries the most weight in the public discourse today--and that ought to carry the most weight--is that if it is "legitimate rape," then the woman's body will shut the pregnancy down. That is a statement, right there.

But again with feeling, my reaction to the 32,000 number is quite independent of Akin's statements and, indeed, rather nonpartisan. Just shock at the idea that 32,000 pregnancies a year in the United States would be caused by rape.

Now, the statutory rape disctinction you keep coming back to is tricky because ostensibly, anyway, statutory rape laws presuppose the absence of consent, while at the same time hedging away from using the term "force."

But just because it involves some difficult context and needs more examining does not mean people are wrong to react to these numbers as if they are a big deal.

"And that it's easy to mislead people with big scary numbers."

That is true of course. But it's also easy to mislead by collapsing things together that do not belong together. Collapsing rape-induced pregnancies as part of the general US pregnancy rate (which I am still not sure whether you support) is this sort of misleading.

"Imagine: 400 Rape Victims Forced to Pay Support To Rapist Last Year"

I see your point, although to be fair, according to our own laws, this headline would not be out of conversation with reality.

In an election year, there are thousands of politicians talking about thousands of things in front of thousnds of cellphones that, in moments, can become a camera. There are so many occasions for stupidity, unforced errors, and the like, because not every candidate will spend 100% of his palavering on the economy.

The Republican candidate for the Missouri Senate has something to answer for, and will be doing so for quite a while. Ryan, Romney, and every other GOP candidate have nothing to answer for. They did not make the stupid remark. And if you find yourself concentrating on this stupidity, or thing the GOP candidates should be concentrating on this stupidity, then remember, oh gracious host....

Ryan neither voted for nor sponsored a bill that would forbid abortion even in the case of rape. Continuing to repeat a lie that everybody knows is a lie just makes you look foolish.

Claiming that an easily proven fact is a lie makes you look very foolish.

"Ryan has been a staunch advocate for pro-life causes, and is one of the 64 co-sponsors of H.R. 212, known as the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which pertains to the 14th Amendment, which states that "the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being," and the bill makes the claim that "the life of each human being begins with fertilization."An I got that from pro-life website.

Michael K said..."Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it does tend to lean left ..."

"the addition of the qualifier "forcible" to the word "rape" ... HR 3 makes no substantive change."

1. wiki/lefties? are you insane? 2. "no substantive change"???

I was a date-rape victim in college and when we went to trial the first things that were established was that 1. I was single and 2. I was taking birth control 3. I had had several sexual partners in the last few months ergo, it wasn't rape, it was my fault for inviting him in for coffee; with my "past" what else was he to think and that it was all part of the "scene".

Under the Ryan agenda let alone that bozo in Missouri, if I had gotten pregnant he would have gotten off scott free as it was clearly "consentual rape" and I would have been guilty of murder if I had an abortion. In fact, under legislation that Ryan supports, my BC pill would be murder.

Damn right we have every reason to be up in arms about the mere subject of all this.

Chip Ahoy said "Yes, the Republican party would be the catch basin for that kind of stupid. As the Democratic party is the catch basin for a very broad range of different stupid."

This is artful. I like the "catch basin" metaphor. If we can all agree that in a two-party system (sorry, Libertarians and everyone else) we will inevitably, by centripetal political force, catch weirdos and idiots in each party, then we can relax a bit more, until the weirdos and idiots get elected or appointed to really high offices, like the Senate, the Vice Presidency, or Cabinet positions.

Under the Ryan agenda let alone that bozo in Missouri, if I had gotten pregnant he would have gotten off scott free as it was clearly "consentual rape" and I would have been guilty of murder if I had an abortion.

I'm not real sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but nobody has proposed any bill anywhere, at any time, that would do those things.

Only someone as stupid as you actually believes anything in the sentence you pasted means that legislation bans abortion.

If you define human life protected by the 14th amendment as beginning at fertilization, then abortion, is by definition, a civil rights violation. And btw it would also make a lot of modern fertility treatments illegal.

Don't pretend that the bill is anything except an end run around Roe v. Wade

Freder: No, it would not. You cannot force someone to undergo a medical operation to save another life (i.e., the decision was that one brother could not force another to donate blood.) Therefore, the fetus would not be able to exert rights over the mother to force her to bring it to term.

"Cedarford said... Its a stupid, stupid comment on rape not resulting in pregnancy ...

1. We have the example of almost 2,000 Muslim women in Bosnia who were raped and became pregnant. Indeed, that was one of the reasons given for going to war."

Not to mention 100's of years of wars. Soldiers pay used to be getting to rape and pillage. That's why any one race claiming to be pure is so silly...genetically we're all brothers/sisters because of things like the crusades...

So saying that raped women don't get pregnant very often sort of flies in the face of history.

"But it's also easy to mislead by collapsing things together that do not belong together. Collapsing rape-induced pregnancies as part of the general US pregnancy rate (which I am still not sure whether you support) is this sort of misleading."

No, it's not. If .05% or 5% or 50% of pregnancies are the result of rape, it's not misleading to say that. It's true. I DO think it's misleading to include all pregnant teenagers in stats about rape-induced-pregnancies, because most of their "rapes" aren't included in other statistics about rape, and because it doesn't fit most people's definition of rape. So it skews results. So, I do think "32,000 pregnancies a year are the result of rape" is misleading because most people don't consider sex between two 15-year-olds rape.

If you take Akin's comments to mean "Pregnancy never happens as a result of rape" then, sure, all you need is a number because even one such pregnancy proves him wrong.

If you take Akin's comments to mean "Pregnancy is rarely the result of rape" then you need context because "rare" is relative. You need to know BOTH what percentage of rapes reported resulted in pregnancy, and what percentage of pregnancies, once diagnosed, are reported to be the result of rape. And you need to know what the criteria for counting a pregnancy as resulting from rape is. Akin used a (stupid) qualifier, so we need to know what that qualifier means before we can tell if he's wrong.

That last point is my main quibble with the stat being bandied about. I apologize if you're not the one who first brought it up. I simply can't take seriously any stat that counts all pregnant 15-year-olds as rape victims regardless of the actual situation and the age of her partner. I do think that Akin was referring to what most people would consider rape---that is, forcible rape, rape by use of threat, rape by use of drugs, and statutory rape in which there is a large age difference or the rapist has a particular power over the victim, e.g. a teacher carrying on with a student. But I do think that the percentages matter and that in general it's silly to throw a number out without dealing with context.

And the Romney/Ryan campaign response was just as bad. The response is just as bad because it is not only so mild and self-serving (would the abortion that the campaign supports have been covered under RomneyCare?), but it is so typically-for-Romney detached from any fundamental principles, all while being bad politics.

The right response should have been that "Akin is a complete idiot who says stupid and offensive and idiotic things -- and even in being a complete idiot, he is still better than Claire McCaskill."

The wrong response is one that is essentially a pro-abortion statement, a response that essentially and nonsensically says that it is not intentionally killing an innocent human being if the conception occurs as the result of an involuntary act (rape). To be sure, rape is one of those hard cases, and it deserves much more thought and a much better response than to blithely say "we support abortion in cases rape" -- it is a little more complicated than that, no, it is a lot more complicated than that.

Women who have been raped deserve a better answer than, "go kill the child in your womb." Both the Akin statement and the situation of rape-caused pregnancy require a thoughtful response, and fundamental principles, that recognizes both the gross violation of a woman's person, as well as giving consideration for what actually occurs in an abortion, namely, the tragic killing of an innocent human being, who, in all justice, being innocent, does not deserve to be killed.

Under Wisconsin law, as in many other states, first degree sexual assault includes rape by use of a weapon or threat of use of a dangerous weapon. But it also penalize rape of a person who is intoxicated or unconscious (second degree rape), and it also penalizes any rape without consent (third degree rape) as well as statutory rape.

Why should any rape victim be forced to bear her rapist's child?

Further, pregnancy due to rape should be rare if women who have been raped get proper medical care in a timely way as pregnancy prevention is considered a crucial part of medical treatment for rape. Thus, medical personnel should evaluate if a rape vicitm is pregnant with a pregnancy test, and if she is not pregnant, but she is susceptible to pregnancy (yes, even women in their 70s and 80s are raped), she should be given the option of emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy.

However, many Catholic hospitals and medical professionals who oppose contraception do not offer women who have been raped emergency contraception, or even tell them about the possiblity of pregnancy and appropriate medical treatmentment.

Also, Governor Romney and Rep. Ryan have indicated support for a "personhood amendment," which would make any two-cell embryo a person and might result in barring the use of emergency contraception even for rape victims for fear that an embryo might be destroyed.

"Ryan has been a staunch advocate for pro-life causes, and is one of the 64 co-sponsors of H.R. 212, known as the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which pertains to the 14th Amendment, which states that "the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being," and the bill makes the claim that "the life of each human being begins with fertilization."

I have sons who are 12 and 15 and a mother who is 80. If any or all of them were to fall victim to a condition that left them with the mental capacity of a fertilized egg, I'd be responsible for deciding whether medical steps should be taken to end their lives. Claiming that identifying someone as a human being prevents us from ever making a medical decision to end their life is either dishonest or ignorant. I don't know enough about you to know whether you're lying or just uninformed.

Lindsey Meadows: I was a date-rape victim in college and when we went to trial the first things that were established was that 1. I was single and 2. I was taking birth control 3. I had had several sexual partners in the last few months ergo, it wasn't rape."

Sorry that happened to you. But that is not what you can conclude from the trial.

Unless you got sanctioned for perjury, what the jury was probably saying was that you may well have been raped -- but were unable to prove it to the criminal law standard of reasonable doubt. A very different thing.

"Whether he is or not is certainly a fair question that he will have to answer. The criticisms of his record on this issue are fair. "

-- He's never done this thing I'm saying he's done, but I think he would do this thing I've said he's done, that he has not done, if he did this thing I say he's done that he has not. Therefore, it is fair to say he's done this thing he's never done because I think he would if he did.

-- He's never done this thing I'm saying he's done, but I think he would do this thing I've said he's done, that he has not done, if he did this thing I say he's done that he has not. Therefore, it is fair to say he's done this thing he's never done because I think he would if he did.

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

He's done enough to enable an educated guess about what his position is. That's what I'm saying.

Keep the ad hominem attacks coming, though, if it makes you feel clever.

"He's done enough to enable an educated guess about what his position is. That's what I'm saying."

-- Yet, he has clearly stated that's not his position. And all of his actions show he's willing to accept carve out exceptions for abortion.

So, why are you lying about Paul Ryan? Would it be OK for people to irrationally assume radical positions of other politicians because "I think he might really be for them, despite all evidence to the contrary?" Or do only Republicans get the special mind scan?

It is ironic how many of the pro-abortionists out there would oppose capital punishment for the rapist who actually commits this heinous crime, but are enthusiastically in favor of capital punishment for the innocent victim who is conceived as a result of the rape.

Is that the answer, turning the innocent woman who is a victim into a victimizer of the innocent, telling her that her own victimhood requires that she get innocent blood on her hands?

This whole thread, by the way, is a case study in how the left turns a stupid statement by a solitary stupid politician into a chance to smear every politician they hope to damage. Watch how carefully and adroitly Paul Ryan's radical radicalness has become the center of conversation, while totally ignoring the questions put out about Obama's support of the executive order that does the same as Ryan's support of a bill to prevent federal money being spent on abortions.

It's like the real goal all along has been to attack Romney/Ryan and Akin is just the excuse. All the good will the right earns calling Akin stupid is lost because the left then starts bringing up their irrational belief that Ryan will accuse women of being murderers for taking birth control.

Under the Ryan agenda let alone that bozo in Missouri, if I had gotten pregnant he would have gotten off scott free as it was clearly "consentual rape"

I'm sorry that happened to you because it's awful, but you seem to have made a leap in logic here. Talking about abortion after the fact has nothing really to do with the prosecution of the initial crime. I wouldn't conflate the two. The 'legitimate' rape/forcible rate stuff is probably about distinguishing between statutory 'rape' between consenting teenagers (which most people would not include in the stats) and actual rape of the 'no means no' variety.

From that bastion of right-wing misinformation, ABC news: "'The president called Governor Romney to congratulate him on securing the Republican nomination,' Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement."

I guess the election is really just a formality now that even Obama is "endorsing" Romney.

Second of all, Ryan's position on abortion rights, like Obama's, is fair game. And part of that discussion in the US has always involved,continues to involve, and will continue to involve rape-induced pregnancy.

If Ryan's (or any other politician's) views on these questions are being misrepresented, then fine, clarify away. But to suggest that Akin's comments are alien to a very high profile national debate between the two dominant parties, is misleading.

What is not surprising, however, and the whole point of the question to Akin in the first place, was to use "abortion in cases of rape" as a wedge by which to justify abortion on demand for any and all cases.

The tactic has been used for 40 years now, with the pro-abortion argument being to say to those who oppose abortion, "if you have an exception to your opposition in the case of rape, then you must not really believe that abortion involves the killing of an innocent child. Hence, since abortion does not kill an innocent humann being, it should be allowed in all cases."

This gotcha tactic has been tried and tried for 40 years. And it is the stupid and unprincipled politicians who are NOT pro-life, but are merely anti-abortion in some cases for reasons of political expediency, who fall for such traps, i.e. Mitt Romney.

So Romney and Ryan are trying to "avoid the distraction" of Akin. What lawyerly language.

I would have said "dodge the disaster," or "spin away from the debacle" or maybe "tiptoe through the Tea Party tulips."

Hey, that last one's not so bad. After all, the politicians Romney/Ryan are doing for the GOP what the artist Tiny Tim did for that forgotten old refrain: One last brief moment in the sun as a prelude to oblivion.

Debate Questions for Ryan and Romney:Rape abortion rape abortion rape abortion....why are you going to take away a woman's right to get raped and have an abortion? Why did you kick you dog and put him on the roof?

Considering that changing our national policy with respect to abortion would be a very significant change indeed. And considering that the official GOP platform so strongly advocates changes (that's notwithstanding individual candidates like Akin who perhaps go even further with their language than the platform itself), you'd think they would welcome the big stage for discussing every implication for making this, what would be considered by any reasonable measure, significant change.

Don't wanna field/deal with questions about it? Then stop advocating big changes on that front. It's really very simple.

If it is all just noise, then I make the friendly suggestion to the GOP that they stop putting language about it into their platform, and ask their candidates/politicians to stop talking about abortion and stop nominating judges in part based on their willingness to challenge and/or overturn Roe. I bet if the GOP leaves abortion law alone and "moves on" to the questions that you seem to feel Romney and Ryan ought to be exclusively getting during this election, then the Dems would relievedly drop it as well.

Note that was my advice, if you don't want to field questions about it! If you are bent on changing the law to define abortion as murder, and truly believe that abortion is murder, then surely you welcome the opportunity for your candidates to discuss this issue in all its contours and at every opportunity. Surely you, who have made such strong moralistic assertions as the ones presented above, do not say, 'why all these questions about abortion?' If anything, you ought to be miffed that Romney and Ryan get SO FEW opportunities to address the issue.

Since you're not Ryan or Romney (at least, one imagines you are not), maybe I can ask you, without wasting the flag bearers for the GOP's time on questions that relate directly to the platform the GOP proudly stands upon:

How many would there need to be, for you to acknowledge it as "major"? How many, for you to conclude it was "widespread"?

What April Apple said--its the economy and that, IMO, is the only issue in this election--The good people of Missouri can make their own decisions--Claire is probably still going to lose, but thats a state issue.

Its 42 straight weeks of unemployment above 8 percent, a huge fiscal hole, and no end in sight. Mr Akin's stupidity is for the people of Missouri to sort out--Mr Obama's and Mr Biden's stupidity is for the national electorate to sort out. A clear choice in November.

They should say they are firmly against the murder of the unborn. That they cherish every life even one that might be born disabled or retarded. Much like the young Palin child that the liberals hate so much.

Look how well that worked last time. You know that the media and the Democrats will respect that.

Shana, why not give the rape victim a choice? First she is raped, then she is forced to carry and give birth to her perpetrators child, yes it's half her child too. But you completely leave her rights out of the equation. She is an innocent victim as is the child, is she not?

Why should the rape victim be forced to pay for the sin AND crime of her rapist?

I love the fact you think this is some sort of rebuttal when talking about crime statistics.

Note: Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect."

You are an idiot beyond belief.

Don't worry, for your next stupid pet trick, you will attack something I never said.